Apple Sends Hidden Message to Hackers?

RetrogradeMotion writes "The OSx86 Project is reporting on a hidden message to hackers in Apple's new MacBook Pro. The new Intel-based OS X contains a file named 'Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext' and is accompanied by the message, 'The purpose of this Apple software is to protect Apple copyrighted materials from unauthorized copying and use.' The file is not present in either the PowerPC version of OS X or the Intel version shipped to developers last year. While Apple has sent messages to hackers before, is this a tounge-in-cheek introduction to the anticipated (and hated) Trusted Platform Module? Is locking down OS X a strategic necessity or a missed opportunity?" Obviously a big maybe here, but a good story just the same.

Comments

Of course they want to keep it offa non-Macs!

[Diordna]

Think about it. One of the reasons Windows can be so annoying is that there are a bazillion different configurations. Apple can keep OS X running smoothly because they know exactly what's inside their machines. Once it gets put on a Dell, some idiot's going to complain about how buggy OS X is because it doesn't run on his own personal cobbled-together POS.

Re:Of course they want to keep it offa non-Macs!

[QuantumG]

Imagine a world where food can be made in an inexpensive solar powered replicator but people still starve because the software used by these devices is "protected" by copyright and DRM. That's the argument for "Intellectual Property". If you're for IP then you're for the complete control over a work by the owner of that work. If that's not your position, if you can imagine just one situation where the owner of the work should not have complete control over that work then, please, don't use the term. The decisions we make now about infinitely reproducable software will determine what is acceptable to our children's children when everything is infinitely reproducable. Already the idea that officials should have the right to invade our homes to ensure we are abiding by licensing agreements is considered reasonable to most people.

Re:Of course they want to keep it offa non-Macs!

[shark72]

"Imagine a world where food can be made in an inexpensive solar powered replicator but people still starve because the software used by these devices is "protected" by copyright and DRM. That's the argument for "Intellectual Property"."

That's a textbook definition of a straw man argument. Nobody who wants the right to make money off of their ideas also wants people to starve. Shame on you for even implying that.

"If you're for IP then you're for the complete control over a work by the owner of that work.

And when George Bush and his ilk use the "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists," line, it's obvious bullshit, too.

If you want to save some money by buying a cheap Intel PC at Wal-Mart and installing OSX on it rather than paying Apple's high margins, then groovy -- go for it, if that's what you want to do. This makes you a careful consumer, not some crusader for human rights. If you'd rather keep the money for yourself, than give it to some purveyor of computing hardware or operating system software or record company or film studio, and this fits with your moral compass, then you're simply looking out for your own bottom line. It's saving a few bucks, not the Montomery Freedom March.

Re:Of course they want to keep it offa non-Macs!

[Thomas Miconi]

If you're for IP then you're for the complete control over a work by the owner of that work.

And if you're for "normal" property, then you're for the complete control over a physical item by the owner of that item. To follow on your example, if someone is having a heart attack and theirs friends ask if they can use your car to drive him to the closest hospital, obviously you'll just have to say "uh, no, that's MY car, that's MY petrol, I paid for it, get lost". Cos you see, obviously that's what "property" means. If you don't feel that way then obviously you don't support property, so stop using the term !

</sarcasm>

Thomas-

Re:Can't Apple be forced to release OS X for all x

[nurb432]

Except in that case there was some unfair monopoly issues involved.

In apples case, the market share is far to small to be even considered for that.. So they can bundle as much as they want.

At this point...

[greyrose111]

it's an absolute necessity to lock down OS X from PC use. Apple has, after a series of costly mistakes (i.e. believing that a major corporation like IBM would actually spend money to actively develop a chip that has less that 4% market share) backed themselves into a corner when it comes to software and hardware development. Not to say they aren't good at either of those, but they now serve a very focused and very concentrated user base, consisting mainly of schools and, of course, artists of every kind. The cost is that to continue making the products they do, they must charge a relative premium.
        And if their (excellent) software were suddenly available for the $350 dollar PC you bought from dell (don't tell me no one in their right mind would dare put the holy OS X on a dell... there are enough people not in their right mind to make that common practice) their computer market would be cut in half because frankly; every school, business and especially those poor ass artists, would love to run a safer and more creative friendly platform on a cheaper computer.
        Now, maybe they could make more money if they just dropped computer development completely, but I think someone over at Apple believes that they can start to take some more serious market share back... and with the Intel Macs, it looks as though they can.

Re:why bother

[Senjutsu]

It's the Doom 3 Effect -- Millions of people bittorrented the game 3 days before it hit retail shelves, and then felt like they had to justify the reason they didn't want to pay for it. So the overwhelming reaction was negative. Meanwhile, Half-Life 2 was DRM delivered to paying customers, who of course had a overwhelmingly positive reaction.

Yes, that's a much more rational and likely explanation for the opinions on those two games than the fact that Half-Life 2 was good game and that Doom III was a pretty tech demo with shit game-play.

Hackers are irrelevant

[AHumbleOpinion]

Apple management will fail in its attempts to thwart the hackers.

The hackers and a handful of tech savy users that want OS X on generic hardware are irrelevant. All Apple needs to do is prevent someone with the skills of an average user from being able to get Mac OS X working reliably on generic hardware. The generic PCs running Mac OS X will be novelties, more conversation pieces than serious work environments. There will not be a robust set of drivers, merely what ships on geniune Apple hardware. Apple can break the hack used to get it to work every system software update. It will be a somewhat unreliable machine, unavailable for days at a time while hackers reverse engineer and workaround the latest software update. Will they do so, sure, but it will be irrelevant to mainstream users.

Re:Needs a Coral link...

[Overly Critical Guy]

This message is in a kernel extension (kext). I don't think this is a "hidden" message so much as it might be a kernel message that displays when OS X doesn't detect its own Apple hardware. When people start hacking OS X to run on generic PCs, I wonder if this message is what will display somewhere on bootup.